I was talking to someone who noted that she was blessed with a family/life to die for, but did note that it takes a lot of work. Surely -- anything important is rarely easy, especially having children, which I personally think requires equal amount of love and insanity. This reflects the matter of being a citizen of this nation -- it is not always a piece of cake. Such is why I find it ridiculous when some note that certain news stories might help the enemy, including the national security warrant taps series. You know, the ones where the fact the President broke the law was almost spoken in passing.
Some note overall the program might be counterproductive, especially as carried out right now (including the lack of the necessary warrants and oversight). All the same, it is not impossible to suggest that in some way talking about the program might in some fashion help people we wish not to help. You know, just like if we trust our spouses, it might tempt him/her to do something wrong. In other words, freedom requires a bit of risk. The risk, however, is supposedly worth it. We are not to be a nation of cowards. This theme was raised by some blogs and so forth, and it is a sound one. Freedom of the press, due process of law, equality, and all the rest is not easy. Surely not as much as being a coward, being scared to stand for our freedoms because the terrorists may win or something. Ironic.
The heroes who died in the Memorial Day* roadside bomb attack definitely knew the truth of that statement. The NYT had a piece noting that this conflict is uniquely dangerous to members of the press. A major reason is that this is not really like wars of the past, but is in effect an occupation. This leads to more danger of these surprise attacks. But, as they have at least from the days of the Civil War, the press continues to serve our nation by going to the war zone (technically "war" or not, it is appropriately called) in order to give us a flavor of what is going on. The surviving wives, children, and grandchildren of the slain points out how much risk is involved.
To shift gears a bit, this is sort of why people are quite right to be cynical -- if not just plain angry -- at how Congress (though there were some dissenting voices) responded to the search of Rep. Jefferson's office. Honestly, there was some there there ... it is suggested that the office of a member of Congress should be given the same respect as you and me. But, this is not quite true. Certain places -- lawyer offices, places of worship, bedrooms, news rooms, and so forth -- have rightly been deemed to have special constitutional flavor above and beyond "normal" areas. And, separation of powers and so forth does suggest members of Congress, especially in respect to their legislative papers (so talking about a murder weapon, etc., is misleading), deserve some special concern.
Some was given here, which makes the claim weaker, but due care is a good thing. And, more could have been supplied here, arguably at least. The problem is that the complaints are coming from people who have looked the other way in respect to much more serious threats to liberty and executive overreaching. For instance, lawless warrant taps and telephone record data mining of average Americans is more serious than searching the office of a member of Congress who refused to submit to a subpoena, for which the authorities have glaring cause on tape to suspect of bribery, and which was done via a warrant that included special care respecting legislative papers.
[There was a House panel today investigating the matter. One witness was Jonathan Turley, a professor who has shown consistency as to executive overreaching, including supporting the censure move. The clips on t.v. news that I saw, however, were misleading in that they did not note that there was care taken to weed out privileged material.]
Take that plank out of your eye before you worry about the splinter.** Things do tend to come back and bite ya, don't they? Anyway, the American public has more things to worry about. Like honoring the dead and injured of an attack oh so ironically taking place on Memorial Day.
---
* I watched a mandatory war movie last night, Hell is For Heroes with Steve McQueen and others. Putting aside a chance for Bob Newhart (a young actor at the time) having an opportunity to do one of his famous phone routines, one thing that stood out was a lesson for the tough guy McQueen character. He was an outspoken private, who was upset at some of the decisions made by his sergeant. In the end, he sees the tragic results of questionable (and reckless) command decisions. The importance of chain of command, even when it seems questionable, which it surely was over the years. James Coburn also had an interestingly cerebral character, which was somewhat atypical.
** I referenced that book of bible stories that was recently purchased. The cover art is annoying since it has a lily white Adam and Eve, which encourages people to forget the actual color of their skin. Just started it, but already a few telling stories have something to teach. Consider the Tower of Babel, which is the story of God discovering his people were trying to build a tower to the heavens in order to threaten his authority. He considered the dangers of the people speaking with one voice, deciding to split the world into various competing groups, all speaking a different language. Separation of powers / checks and balance metaphor?
Likewise, before the destruction of Sodom, Abraham pleaded with God to spare it. What if there were fifty righteous people there, would that be enough to spare it? God with all of his justice agreed. Eventually, Abraham whittled things down to ten ... yes, God agreed, if merely ten innocents were present, he would save Sodom. Turned out to be too high of a bar anyway (fleeing the destruction, his nephew Lot's wife looked back, and turned into a pillar of salt -- "sodium" comes to mind), but this sounds like the but one innocent among ten/hundred guilty theme, doesn't it?